It’s time for another good idea, bad idea.

Good idea: sticking to the company line when agreeing to testify against a guy who’s been fired from that company. Yes, even when the company line is they aren’t, officially, your employer due to a somewhat convoluted arangement of sales/mergers/subsidiaries/whatever.

Bad idea: repeating the company line of $company isn’t actually your employer while keeping $company on your LinkedIn profile.

A guy sued Harrah’s, claiming he was fired in an age discrimination suit. In an effort to get out of it, Harrah’s claimed it never really employed the guy. Instead, it noted that he had been employed by the Grand, which was then bought by a subsidiary of Harrah’s, and thus it was the subsidiary who should be considered the employer for the sake of the lawsuit.

The problem with lawsuits like this is they usually end up blowing up in your face. The primary witness in the case, identified in the linked article only as Hirsch, could probably tell you about that. When he was presented with the LinkedIn profile indicating Harah’s as his employer, he proceed to deny the profile actually belonged to him–in spite having varified the information asociated with it already. Needless to say, I think Harah’s just lost that lawsuit good and fair like. Bet they won’t try that more than twice.

Have an opinion?